Adell Panning v. Eureka County;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADELL PANNING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EUREKA COUNTY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-17010
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00643-LRH-
VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 16, 2014 **
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Adell Panning, an employee of Eureka County, appeals the district court’s
grant of summary judgment only as to the County and County Commissioner
Michael Page on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for retaliation under the First
FILED
JAN 22 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Amendment. Reviewing the district court’s order granting summary judgment de
novo, Ellins v. City of Sierra Madre, 710 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2013), we
affirm.
To prevail on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a public employee must
show, among other things, that she suffered an adverse employment action. Eng v.
Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Coszalter v. City of Salem,
320 F.3d 968, 970 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that an adverse employment action is
one “that is reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in constitutionally
protected speech”).
In support of her claim that she suffered an adverse employment action,
Panning offered evidence that Commissioner Page met with her to discuss his
concern that her comments were perceived as an attempt to undermine another
employee. During that meeting, her employer repeatedly disavowed any intention
to discipline Panning, and instead merely urged her to be more tactful and “try to
keep it as positive as you can.” Panning’s own evidence thus conclusively
demonstrates that she was not subject to an adverse employment action. See Nunez
v. City of Los Angeles, 147 F.3d 867, 874–75 (9th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --